- Safiu Kehinde
The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has adjourned the cybercrime and defamation trial of human rights activist, Omoyele Sowore, over the alleged false social media posts against President Bola Tinubu.
NPO Reported that the Department of State Service (DSS) had dragged Sowore to court for calling Tinubu a criminal in series of post shared on his social media handles.
The DSS arraigned the 2023 African Action Congress (AAC) Presidential candidate on a five-count charge with X and Facebook included in the suit as 2nd and 3rd defendants respectively.
Ahead of the Monday hearing of the case, the DSS counsel amended the charge to two counts.
While he had appeared before the court on Monday, Sowore, in a post on his X handle disclosed that the trial was adjourned till Thursday.
The activist further disclosed that the DSS counsel, Adeolu Kehinde (SAN) had during the hearing admitted that he was never briefed by the President about the suit.
This, according to Sowore, contradicted the DSS claims.
The post read; “We are in court today to continue the SLAPP (a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), a retaliatory legal action designed not to seek justice but to intimidate, harass, and silence critics—brought against me by the lawless @OfficialDSSNG
“Their lawyer, Adeolu Kehinde, SAN, stunned the Federal High Court when he openly admitted that he was never briefed by “President” Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu to file any case on his behalf.
“This blunt disclosure directly contradicts the DSS narrative that the allegations against Tinubu are false. If those allegations were indeed lies, why did the President not instruct his own lawyer to formally challenge them in court? The case proceeds to trial on Thursday. We will be back.”
According to reports, the prosecution lawyer had at the hearing of the case applied for the removal of X and Facebook from the suit, an application approved by Justice Umar.
Kehinde, therefore, pleaded that the two counts be read to Sowore.
Counsel to Sowore, Marshal Abubakar, did not oppose Kehinde ‘s application that the charge be read to his client for him to take his plea.
After the counts were read to Sowore, he pleaded not guilty and Abubakar prayed the court to allow Sowore continued to enjoyed the earlier bail granted to him and the court granted it.
The DSS lawyer then informed the court that the prosecution witness was in court to testify in the case and that they were ready to proceed
But Abubakar told the court that they were not ready to go on with the case.
The lawyer submitted that in the proof of evidence attached to the charge, names of witnesses were listed but no single name was mentioned in the case.
Besides, Abubakar, who said that no single testimony of the witnesses were attached, argued that this violated Section 36(6) of the 1999 Constitution.
He further submitted that he needed the adequate time and facility to prepare their defence.
“The depositions of the witnesses and list of witnesses must be frontloaded and they have failed to do this.
“The witnesses are unknown to us and unknown to law.
“Every material needed for the defence of the defendant must be provided for his defence but they have failed to do so my lord,” he added, citing two previous Supreme Court cases and Section 379(1) of Administration of Criminal Justice System (ACJA), 2015 to back his argument.
But Kehinde disagreed with Abubakar.
The senior lawyer submitted that the provision of ACJA as quoted by Abubakar had no bearing in the instant.
Besides, he said reliance on this provision of the law is grossly misconceived and an insult to the court.
“The provision of Section 36(6) that he relied on does not provide that we must provide a name to our witnesses before bringing them to court,” he said.
Kehinde said the defence was at liberty, after the witness must have given the evidence, to ask for a stand down or an adjournment to cross examine their witness.
He said that Abubakar’s submission was a ploy to delay the trial, urging the court to discountenance the argument.
“The concern of parties should be to have the matter determined expeditiously,” he added.
“I submit that the argument of my learner brother is not relevant in this case.
“We have front-loaded the witnesses and we have also front-loaded the charge and exhibits which emanated from the defendants.
“We have also exhibited the case summary,” the senior lawyer said.
After taking all the arguments, Justice Umar adjourned until Jan..22 for definite hearing.(NAN